RSSiTunes to Offer EMI's DRM-free Music
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 2, 2007, 10:48 AM
12:00 pm ET April 2, 2007 - In what could be a watershed moment for the digital entertainment industry, leading music publisher EMI Group announced today it would provide most of its music catalog to listeners without any digital rights management restrictions.
And making Apple CEO Steve Jobs live up to his promises from earlier this year, the two companies have reached a breakthrough agreement where DRM-free EMI music will be available on iTunes next month.
As EMI Group CEO Eric Nicoli announced in a press conference in London this morning, his company will be making available DRM-free music tracks across all platforms, with iTunes having signed up as the publisher’s first distributing partner. DRM-free tracks on iTunes will carry a premium, selling for $1.29 per track versus the $0.99 that has been iTunes’ standard since its inception.
Just yesterday, EMI Group CEO Eric Nicoli issued invitations to his employees to attend his company’s headquarters in London, specifically in the center atrium, for what appeared to be a little concert and a little announcement. Given what day it was, employees weren’t at all certain the invitation was serious.
“We were acutely aware that the invitations were issued on April Fool’s Day,” opened Nicoli during his speech to employees, which was open to the press and which was indeed preceded by a concert. “That was, I’m afraid, unavoidable, and we’re aware that the invitations have provoked considerable speculation over the last 24 hours.”
Given that the press attendance was indeed real, the nature of Nicoli’s announcement ended up not much of a surprise among the company’s ranks, judging from the audience response during the conference’s audio feed.
Nicoli proceeded to explain how EMI came to the conclusion that providing DRM-free tracks to customers was an evolutionary necessity. “In all of our research,” he said, “consumers tell us overwhelmingly that they would be prepared to pay a higher price for digital music files that they could use on any player. It’s clear to us that interoperability is important to music buyers, and is a key to unlocking and energizing the digital business.
“In January, we ran a number of tests with DRM-free downloads of music from selected leading artists, and in these tests, we made available standard quality downloads and higher-quality downloads at a premium price,” Nicoli continued. “The results were resoundingly clear, with the higher-quality tracks outselling standard by 10 to 1, reaffirming our belief that sound fidelity is for many an important factor.”
Along with the lifting of DRM provisions comes what audiophiles will consider a significant bonus: EMI’s DRM-free tracks will be encoded using 256 kbps non-variable AAC encoding, which Apple says is the same quality level as the original in-studio recording.
“While the current 128 kilobit per second AAC encoding is the best audio quality offered by any mainstream digital music store, audiophiles can still tell a difference between it and the original source material,” Jobs stated this morning. “As portable music players have increased their storage while at the same time coming down in price, it is time to reconsider delivering even higher audio quality than is currently available.”
As he later stated, while FairPlay-endowed, 128 kbps EMI tracks will continue to be available at $0.99 each. “In addition, iTunes customers will be able to easily upgrade their entire library of previously purchased EMI songs and albums to higher-quality DRM-free versions for just 30 cents a song,” Jobs added. “We think customers are going to really appreciate this.”
“Our sampling of users indicates that the vast majority of them will pay the additional 30 cents for the superior audio quality and the safety net of interoperability,” Jobs remarked. “iTunes will let users choose to automatically buy these new DRM-free versions whenever they are available, so that users won’t need to think about it on a song-by-song basis.”
The deal between EMI and Apple brings to an end a two-year-old dispute between them, and may literally have taken place just over the weekend, with Apple’s move just last week to promote albums through iTunes perhaps having served as the crack in the dam. Throughout his statements this morning, EMI’s Nicoli referred to the importance of the album, not just the song, as his company’s principal product.
“Since the digital download business started, many people have talked about the demise of the album,” stated Nicoli. “They said that consumers will cherry-pick their favorite tracks, and will no longer want to buy full albums. At EMI, we believe that the body of work an artist produces is still very important for many fans, and our experience to date tells us there remains a high interest in full albums. At the same time, many do indeed prefer to buy individual tracks.”
To help EMI promote its albums, not just its artists and its songs, Jobs announced that iTunes will be making entire EMI-labeled albums available in the new 256 kbps AAC, DRM-free format at the standard price per track, “so customers can elect to purchase the DRM-free albums with even higher audio quality for the same price.
“EMI has taken the first bold step in the music industry,” Jobs continued. “And starting today, Apple will reach out to all the other major and independent labels to give them the same opportunity. We think our customers are going to love this, and we estimate that well over half of the five million tracks offered on iTunes today will be also offered in DRM-free versions by the end of this calendar year.”
The agreement may not have been without some compromise: Although both executives made references to EMI’s entire music catalog, according to AP reports, tracks from The Beatles have been excluded from this deal. Also, Jobs has obviously given in on his earlier insistence upon a flat fee for music, which was a tremendous sticking point in his previous negotiations with the recording industry as a whole. Now, the other major industry players – Universal Music, Warner Music, and Sony BMG – may be able to exploit Jobs’ willingness to establish a premium tier.
But by making a deal with EMI and not the recording industry, Jobs may have made a very smart play, after recognizing that the industry’s collective representatives may be unwilling to take evolutionary steps as a single entity, though its members may be willing to do so in the spirit of competition.
Still, Jobs showed a few signs of reluctance, even while appearing to embrace the concept of interoperability. While Nicoli stated interoperability was among his customers’ prime concerns, Jobs seemed to think that at least some iTunes customers might not think it’s such a big deal, since in his view, they kinda had interoperability already.
Referring to his customers’ history with iTunes, Jobs remarked, “Although most users have never bumped up against the DRM, the music they have bought from iTunes will not play on portable music players other than iPods unless they burn it onto a CD, and then read that CD back into the computer. So it is interoperable, but it’s a little bit of a hassle. Even though users may not want to play their music on devices other than iPods today, they want to know that they have that choice in the future.”
That last sentence appeared to point to a glimmer of an inkling of a hope that Apple’s loyal customers wouldn’t dream of shifting brands, with iPod as well as Macintosh.
Referring to the tremendous buzz Jobs’ open letter to customers received a few months ago, he closed his comments with this: “Some doubted Apple’s sincerity when we proposed this solution to the interoperability problem earlier this year, saying that as the #1 digital music store and the #1 maker of digital music players, we had too much to lose by breaking the proprietary bond between the iTunes Music Store and iPod music players. Hopefully, by our actions here today and over the coming months, they will conclude that we are continuing to do exactly what has earned us these #1 positions: doing the right thing for the customer, and the right thing for the customer going forward is to tear down the walls that preclude interoperability by going DRM-free. And that starts here today.”
A slight increase in price is perhaps a small negative to the affair, but a higher encoding rate and the music being DRM free is excellent.
Digital technology has allowed us easier ways to access products, from games to music, the DRM imposed on such has in my opinion been a hindrance and caused me to firmly avoid it.
I hope this proves to be a big success for EMI and iTunes so other companies will take note and perhaps in time follow suit.
Score: 0
|This is a great move on EMI's part, and will give them an ever so temporary competitive advantage over the others. Consumers who know any better will simply not tolerate DRM. The environment is especially tricky nowadays now that consumers (especially European ones) seem to have caught on to encrypted and private file sharing (see http://www.gigatribe.com for an example). The record companies, who now sell directly to consumers, absolutely must lower prices if they want to stay in business. They've eliminated all of the distribution middlemen now it's time to split the savings with the consumers.
Score: 0
|I still wont buy anything from Itunes. Why buy a single song when you can download a buttload of songs for 14.95 a month on your subscription enabled player?
Score: 0
|On that same note, Why pay 14.95 for a subscription every month when I can buy the songs I want and not worry about them disappearing if I decide to cancel?
Score: 0
|It depends though on how much you buy. If you spend that much anyway on buying songs/albums on iTunes a month, you might as well do the subscription and get all the songs they have to offer for $14.95.
On another note though, why pay about $15 for an album on iTunes or for a subscription when I can get the CD new for the same price, but compatible in any MP3 player, and at a better sound quality? Or if you know where to look, you can normally get the CD for even cheaper. For example used CD's (Amazon.com is a good place; they sometimes have used CD's for about $3 including Shipping), BMG Music,Yourmusic.com (All CD's are $6.99 and free S&H), or you can even trade CD's on Lala.com for only $1 (the same price as one track on iTunes!)
Score: 0
|I'm slightly indifferent with the price increase, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
I, being the cheap mother f***** I am, I refuse to shell anything out until:
1 - I can use my creative zen with itunes
2 - I can pick what format I download (allofmp3.com anyone?). I really don't need something *that* high quality. 160kb mp3 or similar is sufficient for me. Lower quality = lower price.
3 - The price comes down a bit. It still remains a nicety that I still can't afford.
Score: 0
|Beware. There is a catch. These people don't do anything FOR anyone but themselves. Those that get into this will end up with some other issue later. There WILL be something.
"all that glitters is not gold"
Score: 0
|Obviously they're doing it to make money but what is this catch your speaking of?
Score: 0
|lmao...
Sucks to be you, man. Never a good thing, eh? Everything has a dark cloud over it?
You're not Goth, by chance, are you? Or are you just another emo?
Score: 0
|You ask for good things...
Good things would be no more lawsuits (of the general public) over downloading music/movies. Good things would be the abolishment of DRM across the board. Good things would be for someone in authority to finally make a decision as to wether or not downloading music/movies is legal/illegal.
Score: 0
|Good things would be no more lawsuits (of the general public) over downloading music/movies.
Great. Get the pirates to stop doing it. Problem solved, everyone's happy. That was easy.
Good things would be the abolishment of DRM across the board.
Same as above.
Good things would be for someone in authority to finally make a decision as to wether or not downloading music/movies is legal/illegal.
Illegal. Ever heard of the Copyright Act? It's a pretty definitive source.
Score: 0
|Yes I have to agree with PC_Tool........
Score: 0
|How *dare* you! :p
Score: 0
|Crap. Now I have to download Itunes again, sigh.
Score: 0
|I dig that! Goodbye DRM - Hello iTunes Store!
Score: 0
|*deleted by poster*
Score: 0
|Excellent! I am definitely going to take them up on this. Of course I will be mindful of the increased price and it will take a higher threshold of sweetness to make me shell out my hard earned scratch. Most of the overproduced recycled clone-pop is not worth the time to download it let alone pay for it.
I may even stop burning effigies of Jobs in my back yard...
Ironic how the RIAA clings to DRM even when one of their member organizations casts that outdated technology adrift. Could it be that they recognize that the true source of their increased power and influence is the imaginary Piracy crisis they have ginned up to justify all of the lawyers they have on payroll and the open season on grandmothers and college students they seem to have been given. Can you blame them after all, who doesn't like chasing down and terryfying a grandma or a college student.
How are they going to get their thrill on if DRM goes away?...they may have to go back to clubbing baby seals to death.
Score: 0
|they may have to go back to clubbing baby seals to death.
Nah, that's still just a hobby. ;p
Score: 0
|DRM free? Count me in big time! You rule iTunes!
Score: 0
|So, if its drm free music how much does a full cd cost?
I don't really see the point in digital music unless its an import because if its a cd I want but I don't mind forgoing a little quality and half the price thats a deal.
But buying a new cd (read:mainstream:radio:indie)and the cd costs 12 dollars and a full one costs 10 for digital 2 bucks is not worth having a digital only copy.
Score: 0
|But it gives you the option of not having to buy the album. Duh.
Score: 0
|Yes, this might be a real option for me! At that price though, it'll probably only be the occasional song that I can't get hold of elsewhere... www.iomoio.com
Score: 0
|DRM will die soon. I have been using SharePod as opposed to iTunes from day one so I can easily load new songs and share my entire library with whomever I choose. Plus it works with Vista and runs directly from the device.
Why anyone would use a bloated program simply to load songs and videos to thier device is beyond me.
Score: 0
|$1.29? That doesn't sound too bad.
Over here in Blighty, it's 99p, which roughly equates to $2.00. A bloody rip-off.
Score: 0
|AWSOME. JUST AWSOME!
THANK YOU EMI and iTunes!
Score: 0
|256 kbps is a good quality. 128 kbps was too low for my tastes. That, plus the removal of DRM, makes this a good deal for me. I may never purchase a physical CD again.
Score: 0
|I highly doubt you could tell the difference between 128 and 256.
Score: 0
|True. Ogg and AAC at 128 are pretty darn difficult to tell from full uncompressed wav. You need a pretty well-trained ear to do so.
Score: 0
|i find it is easy to tell the differance on a great sound system in a car or home theater, but if using only headphones, 128 is sufficient, as i dont have $300 headphones. although i use 192 for my zen touch, because i use it mostly in my car, but the music suffers from the headphone jack to input conversion.
Score: 0
|If you're using a Zen, I doubt you're talking about AAC. AAC is NOT MP3. 128 AAC > 128 MP3.
Score: 0
|128 and 256 sounds totally different on descent speakers/headphones.
I personally never bought a single song, because they were 128kbps encoded. Now I will start buying songs.
Nevertheless, I think I should also be offered a download of a 16-bit stereo WAV file, so I could burn a CD with the original master quality intact.
Score: 0
|I can tell a difference too. There where 2 reasons why i won't use itunes. Quality of the sound and price. Mark one off the list. Until they lower their prices, i will stick with the "alternative".
Score: 0
|"256 kbps non-variable AAC encoding, which is the same quality level as the original in-studio recording"
no.
Score: 0
|Exactly.
Score: 0
|Ummm... no. Even CDs are not that. Unless they start offering lossless 96/24, I don't buy it.
Score: 0
|So you only buy DVD-A and SACDs? Where do you expect to find anything 24/96? CD's are 16/44.1. I'd take 256kbps AAC for $1.29 a song. Good thing AAC works on Zunes, too. I'd definately be willing to buy a track or two and give it a try.
Score: 0
|A lot of record companies record the live studio performance straight to Direct Stream Digital audio. Then they use Sony's Super Bitmapping technology to put the audio on a standard CD. The resulting audio is almost indistinguishable from a stereo SACD on most mid range stereo systems.
At the very least, I would think that the master recording of any given song would be done at either 96KHz/24-bit or 192KHz/24-bit audio. It's very strange that record companies would create a master recording of a song at such a low quality (256kbps non-variable AAC).
Score: 0
|DSD which I think is the SACD format if I remember correctly isn't even PCM so it's neither 96/24 or 192/24. It's 1-bit/1.28MHz or something like that.
Either way. Of course the master is always going to be a DSD or "Higher Def" PCM than CDDA. But just like they do now they compress the 44.1/16 to 128kbps AAC, they'll just do it to a 256kbps one too. And of course any keen ear will be able to distinguish it from a really high quality original.
I find it hard many times for my own ears to hear the difference between one of my own 96/24 recordings resampled to 44.1 and lowered to 16-bit with dithering, and then converting to a 192kbps WMA using the WMA 10 pro codec. I rip all my CDs to 192kbps WMAs and can barely tell them apart from the original.
Of course steve was just pulling some marketing mumbo jumbo, but he didn't say the studio masters are in AAC. Just that the 256kbps AAC is virtually indistinguisable from a studio master to the untrained ear which 90% of their customers have.
But what I'm wondering is, what's going to happen when all iTunes songs go to this format and people start finding that they can only fit about half the number of songs advertised since the file sizes are practically doubled.
Score: 0
|Kinda shocked Jobs went for the $1.29 per song thing, but 256k is a nice bonus in addition to no copy protection.
Too bad they don't sell it in the standard MP3 format, but I guess folks can use free programs like Bonk Encoder to convert from AAC to MP3 without too much loss in quality (I hope)
Score: 0
|Most MP3 players and phone can read AAC songs and so can car stereos but not the DRM encoded AACs bought off of itunes. I think it was last year that the record companies wanted Apple to raise the prices of songs to compensate for the loss because of pirated mp3s but Apple refused. I guess this is an acceptable reason to increase the cost by offering a higher quality file and DRM-free version to use on different players.
Score: 0
|I still don't get the DRM problem. I buy music on iTunes, burn it to CD, rip the CD to MP3, and play the music on any device I want.
Why is this such a problem? Am I missing something, or are people just really lazy?
Score: 0
|i'd much rather spend 5 seconds buying a track than 30 minutes doing what you just said. so yeah i'm lazy and besides it's my ****ing music, i bought it and i should be able to do anything i want with it short of giving it to another person.
Score: 0
|Wow, touchy subject, or are you just naturally grouchy?
If you stand one more question (without having a stroke), is it worth the extra 30 cents a song to you? Don't break your keyboard typing the answer.
Score: 0
|Yes and no. I'd still rather have the full CD, but out of the two digital formats, yes, it's well worth the extra $6 per 20 track album for me at least to save 30 minutes. I could spend that time earning money and getting a lot more than $12 an hour.
Score: 0
|I guess losing sound quality be decoding and re-encoding doesn't bother you all that much...and I'd gladly pay 30 cents to save myself 30 minutes...my time is worth more then $1/hour.
Score: 0
|it wont cost an extra 6$ per 20 track album, if you read it it says for albums, no drm higher encoding same price.
not wasting tons of cds and time burning cds then reripping them to the computer. our rewritable cds still waste of time.
do you delete the files you've paid for? seems like a good purchase
Score: 0
|Well, then Apple and EMI will have to hope there are a lot of listeners like you.
Myself, I play the stuff mostly in my car through an FM transmitter so, no I don't mind a slight drop in sound quality. Neither will the cellphone crowd or most of the music player/$20 earbud kids. Then again, a lot of people are still stealing the songs and I'm not sure raising the price is going to help that.
It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Personally, I think it's a great idea that's overdue. I'm just not sure it's going to do enough to make both sides happy.
Score: 0
|Looks like DRM just died. I can't imagine that all the other labels won't jump on this. Jobs refused to raise the prices when they asked before, so now he can say, "Hey look, here's an extra 30 cents a song!"
Nicely done.
Score: 0
|Hmm interesting wonder if Jobs actually expected some label to do this.
We will see how it fares out in the end i guess :)
Score: 0
|I wonder if this was a requirement for the Beatles agreement.
Score: 0
|I think this is a step in the right direction indeed. But what if they have some hidden time requirement in there somewhere? I wouldn't trust the RIAA or any of it's members further than i can throw them.
Score: 0
|